"Saint" Bongo pwned...

[Gob]

He is the rock legend dubbed 'Saint Bono' for his long-running campaign against global poverty.

But when Bono's band U2 perform at Glastonbury later this month, protesters are planning to accuse them of avoiding taxes which could have helped exactly the sort of people the singer cares about so dearly.

Members of activist group Art Uncut will hoist a massive inflatable sign with the message 'Bono Pay Up' spelt out in lights during the Irish band's headline performance.

They will also parade bundles of oversized fake cash in front of the singer.

The protest has been provoked by U2's decision to move their multi-million-pound music and publishing business away from Ireland – thus allegedly avoiding taxes on record sales.

A spokesman for Art Uncut, an off-shoot of controversial group UK Uncut, said the protest would not be violent or disrupt U2's set – but would be 'highly visible'.

He said: 'Bono claims to care about the developing world, but U2 greedily indulges in the very kind of tax avoidance that is crippling poor nations.

'We will be showing the very real impact of U2's tax avoidance on hospitals and schools in Ireland. Anyone watching will be made very aware that Bono needs to pay up.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1ORNkLfXV

[@meric@nwom@n]

Why am I unsuprised.

[Scooter]

I'm sorry, but I'm just not getting it. Did he move his business to a lower tax jurisdiction? Somehow I doubt that tax rates in the Netherlands were lower at the time than they were in Ireland, so where is the "tax avoidance'?

[Gob]

The band sparked a wave of criticism in 2006 by shifting parts of its business affairs from Ireland to the Netherlands in response to a cap on generous tax breaks for artists in the republic.

Previously, worldwide royalties earned from works of art – including rock CDs – could be declared tax free as part of a popular initiative to help struggling artists and reflect Ireland's reputation as a cultural hub. However the biggest beneficiaries were the likes of U2 rather than artists on the breadline.

Dr Sheila Killian, of the University of Limerick, said the introduction of a cap – initially set at €250,000 (£222,500) a year – was still generous and left the tax affairs of most working artists unaffected. She said: "Bono's attitude to what tax is all about is ill thought out. Tax is about citizenship."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/ju ... protesters

[Lord Jim]

Oh no!

A self righteous lefty do-gooder turns out to be a hypocrite when his own money is on the line....

Quick! Somebody get the smelling salts...

[Scooter]

Again, I'm not seeing where the "tax avoidance" is unless someone can show me that they would be paying less tax in the Netherlands...

Otherwise, what I am seeing is that a tax scheme that was still favorable to artists did not remain sufficiently so to outweigh whatever other advantages there were to relocating to the Netherlands (where they were obviously paying tax).

I'm not sure what is "hypocritical" about paying tax in one jurisdiction vs. another (again, unless someone can show some tax advantage of locating in the Netherlands).

[Gob]

This makes Bono’s shift of his tax affairs from Ireland to the Netherlands all the more difficult to understand. As I’ve said before on this site, and will say again, Ireland is a tax haven. And amongst the absurd benefits it has offered is tax free status to artists. U2 have apparently exploited this to ensure that no tax has been paid on the royalties they have earned from their songs.

Now, in a slightly more enlightened moment Ireland has decided to cap the income which can be subject to this exemption at 250,000 euros per annum. This is, of course, income beyond the dreams of about 99% of artists, whatever their medium, and so hardly diminishes Ireland‘s commitment to support the arts, if that was the intent of the exemption. But the change is apparently unacceptable to U2.

Let’s put this in context. At worst the change means that if their excess royalties were shifted into an Irish company they might be subject to 12.5% corporation tax. This is, because Ireland is a tax haven, one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. Except that the Netherlands, which as I’ve also noted before will get increasing attention from this site, offers an even better deal on royalties and hopes to improve still further upon it from January 2007.

In essence, the Netherlands has done two things. Firstly, unlike almost any other tax haven, it has developed a considerable network of double tax treaties. These offer the advantage almost unknown in the tax haven world of allowing royalties to be paid to the Netherlands without tax being deducted at source in many of the originating counties, or if taxes are to be deducted, the rate is much reduced. This makes it an ideal place to receive royalties.

As a tax haven the Netherlands has gone a deliberate stage further than this, which might otherwise be a characteristic it otherwise shares with a fair number of developed countries. The additional feature it has added that in essence the Netherlands seeks to tax the royalties received at a very low rate. The rate is officially 10% from January 2007 but given the significant range of reliefs and deductions also available, not usually available elsewhere, the effective rate can be much lower, which is absurd even by Irish standards. The rate can be reduced still further if the royalties are then paid on to a Netherlands Antilles holding company. It’s clear Bono is looking to exploit some of these arrangements, although precisely how is not certain. But, the Stones have been there before them. It’s clear they work.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/08/20/100/

[Scooter]

Ok, thanks, I knew that Ireland already had quite low tax rates, so I was unsure where the tax advantage would lie in moving to the Netherlands. This (sort of) explains it.

[Guinevere]

The protest has been provoked by U2's decision to move their multi-million-pound music and publishing business away from Ireland – thus allegedly avoiding taxes on record sales.

Quote from the original article, emphasis mine.

Glad the judge, jury, and executioner are all rolled into one. Think of the tax dollars *that* kind of streamlining saves.

[rubato]

A number of US writers moved to Ireland* because they had zero income tax for writers and artists. A pretty sweet deal for a rock star.

yrs,
rubato

*J.P. Donleavy for one. For those tiny few of you who actually read books.

[Gob]

U2 guitarist The Edge has been told his property development proposal would be one of the all-time "worst" for environmental devastation.

The 'Elevation' rocker ' whose real name is David Evans ' had a proposal to construct five mansions overlooking Malibu rejected by the California Coastal Commission yesterday (16.06.11), despite making reassurances that the venture would be environmentally-friendly.

After turning down the scheme by a vote of 8-4, the commission's executive director Peter Douglas said: "In 38 years of this commission's existence, this is one of the three worst projects that I've seen in terms of environmental devastation

"It's a contradiction in terms -- you can't be serious about being an environmentalist and pick this location."

The commission cited the effects on habitat, land formation, scenic views and water quality as their reason for refusing the project.

Reports twice recommended rejecting the proposal, arguing it would scar a rugged ridgeline and expressed concerns that it could pave the way for other landscape-altering projects in the region.

The commission admitted they expect the matter to end up in court

http://www.music-news.com/shownews.asp? ... emID=42043